Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Top 100 Generals

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 125126127
Author
KongMing View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 09-May-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 58
  Quote KongMing Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Top 100 Generals
    Posted: 16-Feb-2013 at 22:22
Where is Sun Tzu?
Back to Top
Delenda est Roma View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

Suspended

Joined: 10-Jul-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 541
  Quote Delenda est Roma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Apr-2013 at 00:13
Originally posted by emperor_stylianos

I think I am the only person who thinks that Hannibal wasn't much of a great commander. He just took advantage of the fact that the Roman commanders were pampered grown men grown fat on food and wine who only told their army to go and kill the other guy.



I think you are simply not very knowledgeable about what you are speakig of. All Roman Counsuls and praetors had to have combat experience to be elected to their positions. Many fought personally and bravely in battle themselves.
Back to Top
Young man View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 30-Sep-2013
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1
  Quote Young man Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Sep-2013 at 15:53
I think Hannibal Barca is been the best general of all times.
He remained on the Rome's territory for many years, in overwhelming inferiority for soldiers number and also for the quality of his equipments.
Besides he destroyed completely the roman army during the battle of Canne,
thing that never happened in the history .
At the same time i think that doesn't exist the perfect general, all them had their weaknesses,
and the soggettive situations (weather, tecnology, casuality and other things) decided the most important battles.
Back to Top
Javier View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 03-Jan-2014
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2
  Quote Javier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Jan-2014 at 15:01
I don't know if it fits here but i'm very interested in the syrian civil war and i know that is one of the most notable conflicts in the Middle East in recent times is the Syrian civil war. As with many such internal rifts, there is not one identifiable cause but rather multiple, integrated factors that have contributed to this conflict. So I found this about it maybe someone want to know more http://syriancivilwar.net
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4621
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Jan-2014 at 23:37
I would rather think the name Muhammad, Praise be,PBUH, is enough!

But perhaps we should look at Muhammad II the Conqueror? Who may be both?

Ron

Edited by opuslola - 03-Jan-2014 at 23:45
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
distefano View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 13-Mar-2014
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1
  Quote distefano Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Mar-2014 at 20:30
General Giap must be the best modern commander having masterminded Dien Bien Phu and defeated both the French and Americans as well as the South Vietnamese.
Are there really as many top generals from the 4 year American Civil War as there are from the whole of Roman, Byzantine, French or English etc history?
Back to Top
Sarmata View Drop Down
Consul
Consul

suspended

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 314
  Quote Sarmata Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Mar-2014 at 22:18
Koniecpolski is reaaaalllly underrated here. really? francesco sforza is ahead of the guy who fought the lion of the north to a stalemate (depending on who you ask, some owuld say he was victorious).
Back to Top
Scartabelli View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 16-Jul-2014
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3
  Quote Scartabelli Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jul-2014 at 10:19
Originally posted by Sarmata

Koniecpolski is reaaaalllly underrated here. really? francesco sforza is ahead of the guy who fought the lion of the north to a stalemate (depending on who you ask, some owuld say he was victorious).
I agree. 

I really do not understand why Stanislaw Koniecpolski is so low on that list when Lion of the nroth is so high.He not only defeated Gustavus II Adofus several times but he also fought against Tatars and the Ottoman Empire. This means that he faced a more various enemies and tactics.

Another thing I do not understand is the lack of Stanislaw Żółkiewski on this list. 
Everyone who heard about the Battle of Klushino knows that he deserves a place on this list. But that's not all. Stanislaw Żółkiewski fought in the campaigns against the Tatars, Russia, the Ottoman Empire and Sweden. He was the first European who took Moscow and he occupied the city and Russia for more than two years. Finally he forced the Russian boyars to choose the Polish prince for the Tsar of Russia. No one in history has done something like this. 

P. S. Jan III Sobieski was his great-grandson.
Back to Top
Scartabelli View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 16-Jul-2014
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3
  Quote Scartabelli Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jul-2014 at 10:34
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanis%C5%82aw_%C5%BB%C3%B3%C5%82kiewski

Edited by Scartabelli - 16-Jul-2014 at 10:42
Back to Top
Sarmata View Drop Down
Consul
Consul

suspended

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 314
  Quote Sarmata Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Sep-2014 at 21:37
Agreed. Zolkiewski definitely earned himself a spotlight in the pantheon of Polish Hetmans for his battle at Klushino. Unfortunately though he was cursed with having a bat-shit crazy king who completely allowed for the collapse of any chance to join Muscovy and Poland-Lithuania under one ruler. Crazy Jesuit.
I also realized Pilsudski is not here. On a top 100? I'd say the war with the Bolsheviks was a pretty significant victory (although I guess its STILL disputed who really came up with the plan for the counter-offensive).
Why is Zhukov up there and no sign of Rokossowski? You have Robert E. Lee, he won some victories in a civil war and he outdoes the guys I named earlier? can someone justify this for me? Maybe Im missing something. This top 100 is a SHAM!
Back to Top
heheisnoob View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 20-Nov-2014
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1
  Quote heheisnoob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Nov-2014 at 21:36
As a chinese, I find this list is extremely biased towards west. (I'm not supprised about this, cuz I have also seen this kinds of top 100 list made by Chinese, and of course they are pretty biased too. )

Just take one example, Baibars in this list is ranked 80+, but his greatest achievment is only defeating a minor general Kitbuqa of a minor state Ilkhanate of the Monglian Empire. But if you compare this with the achievments by the most success generals in Song Dynasty, like Meng Gong or Wang Jian, they are facing the main forces of the Monglian Empire lead by the great Khans them selves. In fact Baibars has the chance to defeat Kitbuqa was to a great extent because Wang Jian indirectly killed the Khan Mongke in the defence of Diaoyu city, and Hulagu the Khan of Ilkhanate has return to the central asian with his main forces for the struggle of of new great Khan. According to the reasonning, I think generals like Wang Jian should at least ranked higher than Baibars.

I can't find the english wiki about Wang Jian, but you guys can look at the part of the death of Mongke Khan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%B6ngke_Khan

Geographically, the whole Europe, middle east and east asia is about the same size, and with approximately same population amoung history. I would guess a fair list should contain more or less same amoung of military leaders from each of those three regions. But the ppl in this list is mostly european (and they are highly ranked), some from west+cental aisa and only few from east asia. Technically the achievment of unifying europe is more or less same as unifying middle east or unifying China.  According to this logic Belisarius the general who reunified East Roman Empire should be in around the same level as Guo Ziyi or Liu Xiu, the reunifier of Tang dynasty resp. Han dynasty.


Back to Top
Centrix Vigilis View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar

Joined: 18-Aug-2006
Location: The Llano
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7392
  Quote Centrix Vigilis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Nov-2014 at 20:35
You make some fair, and as u note, largely forgotten points. Typically however. The answer lies in the fact that ancient Chinese military history...is not a generalized area of study that is emphasized in the uni system certainly in the US or even Europe. Other than military schools and at a level commensurate with specialized studies.

I know this because I been there and seen it.

Is this right or wrong? that's subjective based on the focus of the departments in question.

Ntl...any aficionado or instructor of Mil Sci-history can not forget that theses cultures and developments were, in certain cases, centuries ahead of their western counterparts.

CV

Edited by Centrix Vigilis - 21-Nov-2014 at 20:37
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'

Back to Top
Stefany View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2014
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 25
  Quote Stefany Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Nov-2014 at 05:34
I can't see Oliver Cromwell in the list and he was a great general, he never lost a battle in his life and he had no formal military education. He waged two invasions, in Ireland and Scotland and won all battles. 

He won the English Civil War, conquered most of Ireland for 9 months and subdued Scotland for even a shorter period of time. 

Cromwell was a peerless general.
My website
My history website
"Duty is the sublimest word in our language." - Robert E. Lee
Back to Top
AnchoritSybarit View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 04-Nov-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 23
  Quote AnchoritSybarit Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Mar-2017 at 14:55
Nice list.  However a couple of points. 

If the list is a list of "good" generals why stop at 100, 150, 200, 500.  Trying to rank them is like comparing apples to oranges to monkeys to screwdrivers to microbial infections.

Comparing generals from different eras is even more subjective.  There are serious differences between pre and post gunpowder wars.  Some of these generals are big fish in a small pond.  Some are primarily subordinates.

Pre gunpowder warfare at different times featured infantry over cavalry, sometimes the exact opposite and even at times coordination between the two.  Does this make a difference.

Are WWII generals better than WWI generals because they had options available to them that their predecessors did not. (airpower, armour)

You rate RE Lee significantly higher than Winfield Scott.  Lee operated almost exclusively on the strategic defensive on his own territory; in fact his 2 strategic offensives ended in stunning failures.  Scott had to mount strategic offenses in a foreign country on completely unfamiliar territory while simultaneously inventing US amphibious landing operations--against a veteran army hardened by almost a decade of combat.  I don't argue the rating, I simply suggest that there is aqualitative difference.

Alexander as number one--no surprise most lists of this type list him there.  Consider this Alexander possessed a weapon far superior to his opponents.  The Macedonian hoplites were armoured fighting against cloth clad Persians.  Does this negate the huge numerical superiority he faced.

Genghis Khan, great general operated for the most part on the steppes of Asia.  Perfect for cavalry.  How would he have fared in a forested Europe.   Maybe just as well.

Napoleon ranked higher than Frederick the Great.  Frederick introduced the oblique attack, a major improvement in battlefield tactics.  Einstein once stated that his achievements were possible because he was standing on the shoulders of giants--Newton, Copernicus, Galileo.  Were Napoleons innovations in battlefield management his own alone or because he stood on the shoulders of Frederick.

Again, I am not arguing against ANY  of your rankings.  I simply suggest a smaller list or lists where you separate merely tactical leaders from those operating at a strategy level.  Those operating independently vs those operating mainly as a subordinate.


What I have I hold.
Back to Top
Arthur-Robin View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23-Feb-2006
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 666
  Quote Arthur-Robin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Mar-2017 at 14:10
Can't read 127 pages but what about "(King) Arthur" who won 12 battles at 9 battle sites [from Great Yarmouth to Portchester]?

Richard Lionheart?

Abraham vs Chedorlaomer

Arminius?

Odin/Woden?

(Robin Hood ["his men are more orderly loyal & at his bidding than mine" etc])
It is wrong/evil/slavery that i am being Forced (no equal options choice) by the elite authorities & my disadvantaged situation to eat (lots of) Fluoridated (etc) water every meal (grains) every day.
Back to Top
Xenophon View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 11-Mar-2017
Location: China
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 11
  Quote Xenophon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Mar-2017 at 03:58
Sun Zi (a.k.a., Sun Tzu) is a figure of disputed historicity.  This is not "revisionist" history. Scholars in China have argued the question since the 1100's. He is not mentioned in 左傳, Zuo Zhuan, the primary source text for ancient Chinese history, dating back to at lerast 100 B.C.  Since he is semi-legendary, it's a bit hard to give him pride of place on a list of verifiably historical figures.

While his book is a classic on the art of war---assuming the work is that of one man, another disputed point---this makes him a theoretician, not necessarily a general of note.

I like to think that Sun Zi was, in fact, historical. However the historical record is too shaky to permit that conclusion.
Victrix causa diis placuit, sed victa catoni
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 125126127

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.172 seconds.